Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

I had a run-in with an atheist the other day.  This one tried to defend her anti-Christianism with the claim that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.  Using the issue of abortion, she argued that the Christian seeking to oppose abortion is trying to impose their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.

The irony was her own argument was in fact an imposition of her own beliefs on others.

The Example of Abortion

I don't intend this to be an article on abortion per se, but the issue was the one raised in challenge to me and it does indeed help bring home the issue of "imposing beliefs."

Abortion being acceptable or evil is not a matter of opinion.  it is a matter of studying the reality of the matter and making a decision on those facts.

The Christian who believes abortion is wrong does not do so because "God says so," but because they believe that the unborn child is a human person, and to arbitrarily end an innocent human life (the unborn child is not an aggressor, as some would argue) at the whim of an individual is to be condemned.  Under this view, to tolerate abortion is to tolerate the right of one person to kill another arbitrarily for reasons of expedience or hardship.

The person who argues abortion should be allowed has to recognize this fact and also to define where their own view is coming from.  The Euphemism of "reproductive freedom" and the slogan of "every child a wanted child" ignores the fact that whether abortion should be allowed or not is not based on "the rights of the mother" but on the issue whether the unborn child is alive.

The pro-life movement has set forth many proofs for the supporting the view the unborn child is alive.  Now, if the Pro-abortion individual wishes to challenge it, a mere denial is not enough, they have to show where the error is and issue their own justifications for their own rule.

Peter Kreeft's "Quadrilemma"

Philosopher Peter Kreeft has discussed what he terms a "quadrilemma" over the abortion issue.  There are four possible choices when it comes to the action of abortion:

1. The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
2. The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
3. The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
4. The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

This is an issue where there are two considerations: Whether the unborn is alive or not and whether we know it or not.  The first consideration is objective: Either the unborn child is alive or it is not.  The second consideration is whether or not we are able to know this truth.

In Situation 1, if the unborn is not a human life and we can demonstrate this to be true then of course there would be no problems with abortion.  Of course this would have to be established to be true.

In Situation 2, if the unborn is a human life and we can demonstrate it to be true (which seems to be done quite effectively) then there can be no question that abortion must be opposed and those who would support abortion would be guilty of advocating Infanticide.

In Situations 3 and 4, we must err on the side of caution until such a time we can determine what is true.  Otherwise our actions are like a hunter firing blindly into motion in a bust without knowing what it is.  It might be a deer… or it might be a child playing in the bushes.

If the hunter shoots, and the unidentified noise in the bushes is a child, the hunter is guilty of homicide through gross negligence.  If it is a deer, it does not excuse his action.  He was lucky in his gross negligence, but that does not excuse the fact that he did not know what his target was.

In these four choices, applied to abortion, only Situation #1 makes abortion tolerable whether legally or morally.  Situation #2 makes it morally obligatory to oppose abortion as a crime of enormous magnitude.  People who claim we cannot know whether the Child is a human life or not (Situations #3 and 4) must either oppose abortion out of caution or be guilty of grossly reckless behavior.

So ultimately this means that the advocate of abortion needs to prove their point that the unborn child is not a human person.

The abortion advocate may protest here that they are being asked to prove a negative.  However, this is their own argument they make and therefore it is up to them to prove the argument they make. Their poor choice of a claim to defend does not take from them the obligation to establish it to be true.

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

The individual who invokes the claim of "imposing beliefs" themselves impose their own beliefs.  They disagree with Christian teaching, which is their right under the concept of free will.  However, their disagreement does not mean the Christian teachings are not true.

Ultimately, what is true is what is to be imposed because it is reality.  Claiming it is imposing beliefs is like saying a sign saying "Danger" in front of a cliff is imposing a belief that it is in fact dangerous to step off of the edge.

Christianity has been demonstrating why certain actions must be opposed for two thousand years.  Doubtlessly some will disagree with these teachings.  However, it is not enough to say "I disagree!"  If society is to follow their claims over those of Christianity, then let them demonstrate their claims to be true.  Let us examine them to make sure there are no holes in the argument, no errors which could lead society to its own destruction.

It is only when we arbitrarily insist on a way without justification that we are imposing the will on others.

Yet this is what secularism does now.  It says "We can't know Christianity is true, so we don't have to listen to it."

Yet Kreeft's quadrilemma is present here too.  It is either true or false and we can either know or not know that fact.  The Christian claims "this is true" and gives basis for their claims.  The secularist, the relativist, the atheist all say "I don't agree this is true," but give no real basis to justify their claims (one of my dislikes in reading atheistic apologetics is seeing how bad their reason and logic actually are).

Now, if one side says "This is true" and offers a reasoned argument for their beliefs while the other side says "I disagree" but provides no such argument for their own side, which one is guilty of "imposing beliefs?"